I’ll begin by stating the obvious. I have been out of elementary school for quite some time now. However, while in elementary school, I learned a great deal of information. Therefore, the ways I was taught in elementary school worked. Hence the reason I am sitting here today, educated, intelligent and succeeding.
Literacy standards have changed, as we learned from reading Resnick and Resnick’s The Nature of Literacy: A Historical Exploration. Through this reading, we learned about different major historical models for literacy development. Although very different, the three forms, Protestant-religious, elite-technical and civic-national, all conformed to the time period they were dominant in. Furthermore, each time period had educated, intelligent people, (at least to the level appropriate for said time period).
So what does this say? Let’s compare the simple and obvious. Each time period had educated people, obviously with debatable levels of literacy, but nonetheless, educated for their time. I am educated, for the present time. Each time period learned through different ways, at least three we can confirm from our reading. Therefore, their learning experiences were not the same as mine. However, it worked! They are educated, I am educated.
Resnick and Resnick concluded that “the claim is frequently made that a return to basics would improve our education system,” however, the consequences are unclear. I believe the consequences would be frightening. Times change because they are forced too. Literacy standards change because they need too. Therefore, models for literacy development change because they need to adapt. With constantly changing needs, our nation changes little by little every day. From making a living by farming to earning a living after college education, the classroom had to change. Children had to, and continue to have to, be prepared for different things. Undoubtedly, with all of the resources being created, classrooms will continue to change. Chalkboards become smart, white boards, pencils and paper become iPads, and grade books become spreadsheets. Change is unavoidable and constant.
For these reasons mentioned, I do not believe it would be smart to even attempt to make a return to the “basic,” whatever the basics actually are. I firmly believe that the “basics” could not prepare children for the skills they need in today’s world. I’m not advocating a move towards college education in kindergarten; however, I don’t feel the basics can cut it anymore. With ELLs, special needs and gifted students all in one place and becoming of equal population, modified and unique classrooms are needed now more than ever before.
What is your opinion on going back to “basics”?
What I imagine people want when they crave a return to the “basics” is greater discipline and personal responsibility. People who say this want to shift a focus on the failings of the system and teachers back to the students, to see where the children are going astray, instead of admitting that something with how they were educated may have been wrong.
There was nothing particularly spectacular about schools in previous times, it’s not like baby boomers are all highly literate, college graduates.
The schools in previous decades were designed with a limited view of student potential, those with exceptionalities had no support and little chance to even enjoy a basic level of instruction. The basic approach necessitated exclusion of those who had difficulties–it was about results. If you couldn’t keep pace with the ideas and the class, it was all your fault.
Now, we know better. Intentionality guides the actions of a good teacher–when a strategy doesn’t work, a new one must be employed.